PM must get Parliament approval for Brexit: UK Supreme Court

PM must get Parliament approval for Brexit: UK Supreme Court The British government’s plans to commence the process of leaving the European Union speedily this spring were injected with further uncertainty as the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not trigger Article 50  — the E.U. article that sets out how a country can leave the union — without a parliamentary vote, upholding the

2016 High Court verdict.  However, in a small victory for the government the court ruled that the government would not have to consult the devolved legislatures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to trigger Article 50.

The 11 justices of the Supreme Court voted 8-3 to hold that the government could “not hold any power if it would thereby change U.K. laws, unless it is authorised to do so by Parliament,” Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court said on Tuesday, accepting the claimant’s argument that leaving the E.U. would change U.K. law and the rights of its residents. The justices rejected government arguments that the 1972 European Communities Act allows for Minsters to withdraw from E.U. treaties without going to Parliament.

On the devolution issue, the court considered the Sewel Convention that states that Westminster did not legislate on devolved issues, and ruled that while the convention played an important role, the “policing of its scope and operation is not a matter for the courts”.

Though the judgment was widely expected, it is a significant blow for the government, which has clung on to its insistence that the executive’s prerogative powers could see it through the triggering of Brexit. In her speech last week, Prime Minister Theresa May conceded parliamentary involvement but only to give the final Brexit deal the go-ahead, well after Article 50 had been triggered.

“This ruling today means that MPs that we have elected will rightfully have the opportunity to bring their invaluable experience and expertise to bear in helping the government select the best course in the forthcoming Brexit negotiations,” said Gina Miller, one of the claimants, speaking outside the Supreme Court. “Only parliament can grant rights to the British people and only parliament can take the away. No Prime Minister, no government, can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged, parliament alone is sovereign.”

The U.K.’s Attorney-General Jeremy Wright said the government was “disappointed” but would comply with the result. A spokesperson for Downing Street said that the result would not change the government’s timetable for triggering Article 50 by the end of March.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said that while his party would not “frustrate the process for invoking Article 50” it would seek to amend the bill to prevent the government from turning Britain into a “bargain basement tax haven off the coast of Europe.”

With the government now conceding defeat on the involvement of Parliament, it remains to be seen the kind of legislation that it will bring before Parliament. The Supreme Court judgment enables the government to bring a “very brief statute” potentially even a single clause.

Still, the result has injected the government’s hopes of triggering Article 50 by with uncertainty that will be undesired by government at this stage in the process. While the Liberal Democrats have said they will vote against the triggering of Article 50 unless a second referendum on the terms of Brexit are held, the government also faces the prospect of opposition in the House of Lords, potentially jeopardising their proposed timetable.